Oct 16,2026: Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries on Friday responded to Elon Musk’s recent remarks about the Indian market and its role in Starlink’s entry into the country, saying it has never feared competition and that every player must abide by Indian laws and policies.
In a statement, Reliance said it welcomed competition in satellite communications, including from Starlink.
It also said all companies, Indian or foreign, must follow the same regulatory process, pointing out that Jio’s satellite services were also awaiting clearances.
The response follows Musk’s remarks accusing the Indian government of favouring established telecom operators over competing players.
The dispute resurfaced after Lauren Dreyer, SpaceX’s vice-president of Starlink Business Operations, told attendees at the India Mobile Congress (IMC) 2026 that the company was ready to begin operations in India but was waiting for regulatory approvals.
“In light of recent remarks about Reliance and the Indian market, we wish to place the facts on record. Like every Indian enterprise, Reliance has grown in an India that welcomes investment and innovation, homegrown or international, that improve the lives of the people,” Reliance Industries said in a statement on Friday.
The company also defended its record on competition, highlighting Jio’s entry into the crowded Indian telecom market in 2016 without any existing customers. It said Jio had since attracted more than 530 million subscribers and helped make digital connectivity more affordable.
“At Reliance, we have never feared competition. We see it as the truest test of who serves the customer best. Jio itself entered India’s crowded telecom market in 2016 as the newest player, with not a single customer. In just ten years, Jio has earned the trust of over 530 million customers and given Indians some of the best digital infrastructure and most affordable data in the world,” the company stated.
Musk first alleged on his social media platform, X, that Starlink was being blocked by certain “oligarchs” keen to keep a “monopolistic chokehold” on Indians.
India’s ministry of communications hit back the next day, calling any suggestion that the framework or its application was unfair or discriminatory “baseless and misconceived” and that the security assessment of the three entities was underway, with all at “broadly the same regulatory stage”.
On October 8, the communications ministry rejected the charge, calling suggestions of discrimination “baseless and misconceived.” It said India’s satcom framework was fair and non-discriminatory,
Hours later, Musk escalated his attack, saying Starlink was licensed to operate in more than 165 countries and had spent five years complying with Indian rules. “So why still no licence? Is Ambani the real boss of India?” he asked, referring to Reliance Industries chairman Mukesh Ambani.
Ahead of Musk in queue: Sunil Mittal
Bharti Airtel chairman Sunil Bharti Mittal on October 14 said his satcom venture Eutelsat OneWeb is significantly ahead of Musk’s Starlink in the satcom queue in India, with the licence applied five years ago, and added that he would be happy to receive the go-ahead at least a few days before the US tech billionaire.
“I think I am significantly ahead in the queue from him. I applied five years back,” Mittal said at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum 2026.
New Delhi, October 15,2026: India’s net direct tax collections rose 13.21 per cent year-on-year to Rs 13.38 lakh crore as of October 14 in the financial year 2026-27, according to data released by the Income Tax Department, with refunds rising at a faster pace and gross collections increasing 14.89 per cent during the period.Net direct tax collections stood at Rs 13,37,866.98 crore as of October 14, compared with Rs 11,81,786.98 crore in the corresponding period of the previous financial year, the data showed.Gross direct tax collections increased to Rs 16,03,066.12 crore from Rs 13,95,278.39 crore a year earlier. However, refunds rose 24.22 per cent to Rs 2,65,199.14 crore, compared with Rs 2,13,491.41 crore in the corresponding period last year.Among the major components, corporate tax collections stood at Rs 5,99,062.48 crore on a net basis, up from Rs 4,96,798.62 crore a year earlier.Net non-corporate tax collections, which include taxes paid by individuals, Hindu Undivided Families, firms and other entities, rose to Rs 6,91,965.71 crore from Rs 6,53,804.16 crore in the year-ago period.
Securities Transaction Tax (STT) collections increased to Rs 46,840.43 crore from Rs 30,901.81 crore, reflecting a rise in collections from transactions in securities.The data also showed that gross corporate tax collections rose to Rs 7,52,961.56 crore from Rs 6,43,721.45 crore, while gross non-corporate tax collections increased to Rs 8,03,245.26 crore from Rs 7,20,353.91 crore.Refunds against corporate tax rose to Rs 1,53,899.08 crore from Rs 1,46,922.83 crore. Non-corporate tax refunds increased more sharply to Rs 1,11,279.55 crore from Rs 66,549.75 crore.The figures indicate that the growth in gross collections was partly offset by the increase in refunds, leaving net direct tax collections 13.21 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of FY2025-26.The data covers collections up to October 14, 2026, and provides a snapshot of direct tax receipts during the first half of the current financial year.
Sept 25,2026: Tata Sons has rejected Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata’s objections to N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as chairman, citing legal opinions from three senior lawyers to support the validity of the September 17 board resolution and the use of the chairman’s casting vote.
In a September 24 letter to Noel Tata, the holding company cited opinions from former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit, former Supreme Court judge B N Srikrishna and senior advocate Sudipto Sarkar. Tata Sons said the three opinions supported its interpretation of the company’s Articles of Association (AoA).
The dispute centres on the voting process for Chandrasekaran’s third five-year term. Chandrasekaran recused himself from the vote. Four of the five directors who voted backed his reappointment, including Tata Trusts nominee Venu Srinivasan, while Noel Tata voted against it. Harish Manwani, who presided over the meeting, subsequently exercised the casting vote.
Tata Trusts has challenged the validity of the resolution, arguing that the two Trust-nominated directors must provide the required affirmative majority and that a casting vote cannot be used when there was no equality of votes at the overall board level.
Lalit backed Tata Sons’ interpretation of the casting-vote provision. He said the split between the directors appointed under Article 104B created an occasion for the presiding chairman to exercise the casting vote under Article 121, and concluded that the September 17 resolution “was validly passed”.
Srikrishna also supported the procedure adopted by the board, saying it was “perfectly consonant with the letter and spirit of Article 121”. He said the provision should be read in a manner that allows board proceedings and the company’s business to move forward rather than remain deadlocked.
On Srinivasan’s vote in favour of Chandrasekaran, Srikrishna said the Trust nominee had “rightly acted pursuant to the statutory fiduciary duty” owed to the company.
Sarkar’s earlier opinion, obtained before the board meeting, also supported Tata Sons’ position on the casting vote. He additionally held that Article 118, which lays down a special process for selecting a new chairman, does not apply to the reappointment of an incumbent chairman.
Tata Trusts maintains its objection
Tata Trusts has maintained that the September 17 resolution was a “legal nullity”, arguing that the chairman’s appointment or reappointment requires the support of a majority of the Trust nominees. It has also cited an opinion from former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud backing its position.
The disagreement therefore hinges on competing interpretations of Articles 118 and 121 of Tata Sons’ AoA—specifically, whether the selection process applies to an incumbent seeking another term and whether a casting vote can resolve a split between the Trust nominees.
Tata Sons has now formally stood by Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, setting the stage for the next move by Tata Trusts in the dispute.